On Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:05:20 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Apr 2014, at 22:33, ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > > Physorg runs a report today in which brain abnormalities are linked with > cannabis use, > > > http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-casual-marijuana-linked-brain-abnormalities.html#ajTabs > > Sounds pretty serious. > > > > > > > Sure, and we have to take all data into account. What that paper show is > just negligible compared to the use of alcohol. Also, they talk about > joint, which is not marjiuana, but a mixture tobacco and marijuana, and it > is not clear if they have verified that the person did not also drink > alcohol. Then all studies I read shows that cannabis augments the number of > neurons, and it is not clear in what sense those deformations constitutes a > problem. > You haven't been forthcoming about the evidence for serious brain damage as a result of cannabis. When I said I'd seen two friends institutionalised, you didn't acknowledge, yes there is serious evidence for brain damage of this kind. You didn't do that. You are apparently making the same sort of mistake as you do over on climate threads. Taking everything into account, is not a case of any two lines of evidence, one being negative one being positive, can be compared and played off against one another. Evidence for serious brain damage, can be compared to evidence for serious brain enhancements...or neutral effects. In the event of neutral effects, then the median would still be in the negative, since the other evidence is for serious brain damage. Comparing to alcohol, which is already legal and embedded into society, is not a sort of, opportunity for an open season arguing for other harmful substances be embedded into society in the same way. Cannabis is clearly a very mixed bag. There is clearly some very worrying evidence linking cannabis to mental illness. There is also a lot of individual testimony linking cannabis to a collapse in most interest in life, ambition, goals, responsibilities. So there's a lot of really negative information and you want to sweep all that under the carpet and discredit the sources. That's very devious conduct, on the face of things.
> > But, anyway, I don't think it makes any sense to ban a drug, as all > studies shows that when it is illegal, you give the market to people who > will not ask the ID to their "clients". On the contrary, the criminals will > target the kids, and get the mean to sell the drug without any price and > quality control. So a proof that cannabis *is* bad for the health is > automatically a reason more to make it legal: to protect the kids. > I agree that legalization is the only solution, because of the serious problem of corruption now mainstream in society as a result of organized crime. I think the only safe way to legalize would be to ramp up individual and company rights....specifically allowing one person to require another person does not use ...certain drugs, ever, or at certain times...as a condition of a legal contract...including employment, marriage, membership of a club..whatever. People wouldn't have to require that, but they'd have the right. I think it would be safe to legalize drugs in that sort of situation, because drugs use would immediately be swept to the periphery. But organized crime would be killed off at the same time. It would also probably have to be multilateral in implementation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
